I regret ever in the past being deceived into the penal. substitution Anti-Biblical Doctrine, where it claims Jesus Christ, God Himself paid for humanities crimes/sins, that is crazy and Anti-Biblical.

or the doctrine that God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) cannot forgive without getting anger out, despite the fact that as proven by The Bible only repentance is needed.

Isaiah 27:4-5 "I am not angry. If only there were briers and thorns confronting me! I would march against them in battle; I would set them all on fire. Or else let them come to me for refuge; let them make peace with me, yes, let them make peace with me."

or the false doctrine of original. sin

or legalistic, faith alone, babies being sinners.

All that protestant false doctrine is anti-Biblical. and I'd like to expose teachings contrary to The Gospel.

"atheism", "macro-evolution", "calvinism", penal. substitution, Traditionalism(going with man tradition regardless of what The Original Hebrew and Greek, manuscripts say) lust doctrine, premarital sex doctrine, etc need to go as they are contrary to The Gospel of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

Catholic and the orthodox Church have problems too. for example doctrine of lust, and premarital sex. looking at a woman sexually is not a sin and proved it, it is therefore contrary to The Gospel.

I remember a friend reposting on Facebook a comment made by her pastor. I critiqued it because he was talking about being "Christ-controlled". I said that is not correct, we are not to be controlled by Christ, rather we should be willing cooperators to God's will.

So I agree, there is so much bad theology out there but because it "sounds good", people like that better than sound doctrine.

looking at a woman sexually is not a sin and proved it, it is therefore contrary to The Gospel.

It is impossible not to look at a woman sexually. Even Christ did. It's in the Bible even. So yes, it cannot be a sin.

What on earth are you getting at?

You ever seen the Last Temptation of Christ?

Anyway can someone show me where pre-marital sex is forbidden in the NT?

I'm honestly asking because I've been searching and can't find it.

In a church that doesn't believe or teach Sola Scriptura, why does that matter?

Well this is just something I've been trying to find on my own recently. And before you ask, no I am not trying to justify my behavior, but I see a lot of the Protestants that use the Bible to say pre-marital sex is forbidden, I just can't find where.

I think there was a debate about this maybe a year ago with acts240 or something? I can't find the thread, but pulling up a search does have some results. I'll look there.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

Ok from the ESV:Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

So what exactly does sexually immoral mean here?

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

looking at a woman sexually is not a sin and proved it, it is therefore contrary to The Gospel.

It is impossible not to look at a woman sexually. Even Christ did. It's in the Bible even. So yes, it cannot be a sin.

What on earth are you getting at?

You ever seen the Last Temptation of Christ?

Anyway can someone show me where pre-marital sex is forbidden in the NT?

I'm honestly asking because I've been searching and can't find it.

The very act of sex was considered marriage of the flesh. In the days of the roman empire. Young women were given in marriage as virgins by there parents. It was expected that the parents would protect the daughters from premarital sex.

1 Corinthians 6 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

Matthew 19:5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

Ephesians 5:31“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

looking at a woman sexually is not a sin and proved it, it is therefore contrary to The Gospel.

It is impossible not to look at a woman sexually. Even Christ did. It's in the Bible even. So yes, it cannot be a sin.

What on earth are you getting at?

You ever seen the Last Temptation of Christ?

Anyway can someone show me where pre-marital sex is forbidden in the NT?

I'm honestly asking because I've been searching and can't find it.

That it goes unmentioned in the OT is more telling, but I've covered why already.

I meant that by looking sexually at a woman means that the look is conditioned by sex which we all have and so did Christ also being human, thus sex was one of a myriad of ways HE <------sex took part within the world.

Or so Isa would claim. But really there is not much too back up his claim. In fact, it has been demonstrated the he is both wrong by being too liberal in the eyes of many Church Fathers, or too conservative in eyes of, well, just about every sane person on the planet.

Sex is never going to remain "within" marriage for most humans on this earth nor decidedly heterosexual, since children certainly display a wide range of sexual behavior regardless of sex / gender, so you must be claiming that almost everyone, like except a couple of a people are going to burn.

I meant that by looking sexually at a woman means that the look is conditioned by sex which we all have and so did Christ also being human, thus sex was one of a myriad of ways HE <------sex took part within the world.

I'm disappointed this was fleshed out contrary to what I thought it originally meant.

I look at all women sexually, myself.

Now is it a sin if I imagine myself to have sex with the person? Or do I have to act out on that "lust" (Although I wouldn't call it that)

« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 07:39:01 PM by Achronos »

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

I meant that by looking sexually at a woman means that the look is conditioned by sex which we all have and so did Christ also being human, thus sex was one of a myriad of ways HE <------sex took part within the world.

I'm disappointed this was fleshed out contrary to what I thought it originally meant.

I look at all women sexually, myself.

Now is it a sin if I imagine myself to have sex with the person? Or do I have to act out on that "lust" (Although I wouldn't call it that)

It is a sin imagining the act as per Scripture. Lust is about desire, not necessarily acting on that desire.

I meant that by looking sexually at a woman means that the look is conditioned by sex which we all have and so did Christ also being human, thus sex was one of a myriad of ways HE <------sex took part within the world.

I'm disappointed this was fleshed out contrary to what I thought it originally meant.

I look at all women sexually, myself.

Now is it a sin if I imagine myself to have sex with the person? Or do I have to act out on that "lust" (Although I wouldn't call it that)

It is a sin imagining the act as per Scripture. Lust is about desire, not necessarily acting on that desire.

Going to call you out. You are wrong here. This is where folks could take a hint from the fundies.

What does the Scripture REALLY say on the most basic level? Nothing to do with imagination. It would weird to imagine for lack of a better word that how we understand imagination today played much of concern for the audience of Jesus' message.

I meant that by looking sexually at a woman means that the look is conditioned by sex which we all have and so did Christ also being human, thus sex was one of a myriad of ways HE <------sex took part within the world.

I'm disappointed this was fleshed out contrary to what I thought it originally meant.

I look at all women sexually, myself.

Now is it a sin if I imagine myself to have sex with the person? Or do I have to act out on that "lust" (Although I wouldn't call it that)

It is a sin imagining the act as per Scripture. Lust is about desire, not necessarily acting on that desire.

Going to call you out. You are wrong here. This is where folks could take a hint from the fundies.

What does the Scripture REALLY say on the most basic level? Nothing to do with imagination. It would weird to imagine for lack of a better word that how we understand imagination today played much of concern for the audience of Jesus' message.

Scripture speaks about lust in the heart, which is what happens when one "imagines". If one has no lust in their heart, then why even imagine?

I meant that by looking sexually at a woman means that the look is conditioned by sex which we all have and so did Christ also being human, thus sex was one of a myriad of ways HE <------sex took part within the world.

I'm disappointed this was fleshed out contrary to what I thought it originally meant.

I look at all women sexually, myself.

Now is it a sin if I imagine myself to have sex with the person? Or do I have to act out on that "lust" (Although I wouldn't call it that)

Calling you out as well. You don't imagine having sex with every woman you meet. This is nonsense.

Where do you find the time?

My point is that is to relate sexually is not necessarily to relate lustfully, although the former is required for the latter. I just can't imagine living in a world where I think about one woman in one hundred sexually much less every.

I meant that by looking sexually at a woman means that the look is conditioned by sex which we all have and so did Christ also being human, thus sex was one of a myriad of ways HE <------sex took part within the world.

I'm disappointed this was fleshed out contrary to what I thought it originally meant.

I look at all women sexually, myself.

Now is it a sin if I imagine myself to have sex with the person? Or do I have to act out on that "lust" (Although I wouldn't call it that)

It is a sin imagining the act as per Scripture. Lust is about desire, not necessarily acting on that desire.

Going to call you out. You are wrong here. This is where folks could take a hint from the fundies.

What does the Scripture REALLY say on the most basic level? Nothing to do with imagination. It would weird to imagine for lack of a better word that how we understand imagination today played much of concern for the audience of Jesus' message.

Scripture speaks about lust in the heart, which is what happens when one "imagines". If one has no lust in their heart, then why even imagine?

That is some philological leap you made there. I suggest you put it in reverse and take some time to consider what it means to have lust in one's HEART versus some thought which is embellished sexually (yes I meant to use the passive).

Go through that Bible and see how the heart plays a role, forget the philology already done on such stuff, it ain't what you think, figuratively and literally.

I meant that by looking sexually at a woman means that the look is conditioned by sex which we all have and so did Christ also being human, thus sex was one of a myriad of ways HE <------sex took part within the world.

I'm disappointed this was fleshed out contrary to what I thought it originally meant.

I look at all women sexually, myself.

Now is it a sin if I imagine myself to have sex with the person? Or do I have to act out on that "lust" (Although I wouldn't call it that)

Calling you out as well. You don't imagine having sex with every woman you meet. This is nonsense.

I don't know how else to call it. Does "fantasizing" fit your fancy?

So not even for a few seconds? I have to disagree. Even on first dates, women I talk to just causually, even at work, yes I think about having sex with such a person.

Quote

Where do you find the time?

As far as viewing women as such? Well, all the time. ;-)

Quote

My point is that is to relate sexually is not necessarily to relate lustfully, although the former is required for the latter. I just can't imagine living in a world where I think about one woman in one hundred sexually much less every.

Be me for a day and you'll see. Ok, sure I'm not going to think about the fat lady at the checkout counter at a grocery store sexually.

I have an abnormal sexual appetite, I'm well aware.

Quote

Please post the Scripture about Christ actually says.

Isn't that the question I asked originally?

Quote

All this navel gazing has to go.

Navel gazing is a particular character flaw in me, I know.

« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 08:03:06 PM by Achronos »

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

No you don't. You are exaggerating (perhaps without knowing) like most men the degree to which they sexualize women, if to simply compensate for the fear of having too low of a libido.

I've known too many guys in my life and have seen how they truly act and behave versus what they say. And have known enough of their mates well enough to know even more.

Then again I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Nearly every guy thinks he carries some enormous libido.

There are outliers. And their behavior will show it.

If seeing a woman triggers "sexual thoughts", big deal. If you find that your heart is burden constantly by lustful thoughts, then you might have a problem.

Really, what would your mind do in a crowd in of thousands of women who are exiting and entering the crowd? I doubt you would be so distracted as not to carry on a conversation or anything else. Maybe I am wrong. But I doubt it.

And to what degree men talk and behave as though they sexualize women is very much culturally constructed. Even where I work the mere change in floor will show an obvious difference in how men behave toward other MEN about women. The "blue collar" types often let me know in some manner they would have "gladly" have sex with a woman. Where as in the more white collar area this almost never done.

No you don't. You are exaggerating (perhaps without knowing) like most men the degree to which they sexualize women, if to simply compensate for the fear of having too low of a libido.

Well before Orthodoxy, I was having, on average, sex about 3 times a day with a girlfriend, sometimes more and less. If it wasn't for the refractory period would be more.

And I had a girl break up with me because all I wanted was too much sex, she felt she was being used. Can't blame her, because she was.

Libido isn't my problem, either.

Quote

I've known too many guys in my life and have seen how they truly act and behave versus what they say. And have known enough of their mates well enough to know even more.

Yeah you're not going to see me jerk off in public or seduce women. I behave differently with a girl in an intimate setting, in public different story.

Quote

Then again I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Nearly every guy thinks he carries some enormous libido.

It's gone down over the years, albeit slightly. Sure my libido isn't enormous like it was when I was 16-18. We'll see what happens when I hit 30.

Quote

If seeing a woman triggers "sexual thoughts", big deal. If you find that your heart is burden constantly by lustful thoughts, then you might have a problem.

Does obsessing over someone sexually count?

Quote

Really, what would your mind do in a crowd in of thousands of women who are exiting and entering the crowd? I doubt you would be so distracted as not to carry on a conversation or anything else. Maybe I am wrong. But I doubt it.

I can do both, have a conversation and think about having sex with whoever it is I'm talking to. I have certain triggers that develops those thoughts.

A woman would have to wear the most conservative/ugliest clothing or look unattractive for me not to think about it.

And can't the monks pray and talk at the same time?

How about when having a longterm relationship with a girl, and when having sex I'm fantasing about another girl? It's happened many times. Yeah I was pretty awful.

I'm worse than JamesR.

Orthodoxy has surely made an impact on my sexual desires, but I still think about it way too much.

« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 08:38:26 PM by Achronos »

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

No you don't. You are exaggerating (perhaps without knowing) like most men the degree to which they sexualize women, if to simply compensate for the fear of having too low of a libido.

Well before Orthodoxy, I was having, on average, sex about 3 times a day with a girlfriend, sometimes more and less. If it wasn't for the refractory period would be more.

If people think is getting too explicit, sorry.

This is hardly out of the norm for young men (sorta on the low end, if they can) or men above 30 or even 40.

Some young men wouldn't even understand what you mean about refractory period.

You should probably quit thinking about the perceived problem so much. It is hardly disordering your life (except for that one relationship and that cudda just been a reason that sounded better to end things than the truth). If you start missing work. Losing weight. Going to jail. We'll talk.

So orthonorm, young people having that much sex isn't much of a big deal? I thought I was having a sex addiction problem, it did affect that one relationship. But it seems to me when it affects certain things, then it's a problem. And if it's not causing any problems, then there shouldn't be anything to worry about.

Oh and didn't mean for this to get explicit. I figure people know my posting history on this subject before.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

That is some philological leap you made there. I suggest you put it in reverse and take some time to consider what it means to have lust in one's HEART versus some thought which is embellished sexually (yes I meant to use the passive).

Go through that Bible and see how the heart plays a role, forget the philology already done on such stuff, it ain't what you think, figuratively and literally.

If you have all the answers, why not just blurt it out instead of playing games?

I know I'm right. Sexually fantacizing about someone is contrary to the love of God which we need to have in our hearts and the same love we need to love others with.

So orthonorm, young people having that much sex isn't much of a big deal? I thought I was having a sex addiction problem, it did affect that one relationship. But it seems to me when it affects certain things, then it's a problem. And if it's not causing any problems, then there shouldn't be anything to worry about.

Oh and didn't mean for this to get explicit. I figure people know my posting history on this subject before.

looking at a woman sexually is not a sin and proved it, it is therefore contrary to The Gospel.

It is impossible not to look at a woman sexually. Even Christ did. It's in the Bible even. So yes, it cannot be a sin.

What on earth are you getting at?

You ever seen the Last Temptation of Christ?

Anyway can someone show me where pre-marital sex is forbidden in the NT?

I'm honestly asking because I've been searching and can't find it.

It's allueded to in the story of the Samaritan woman and in the fact that, when the Virgin Mary was found to be with child, Joseph was unwilling to put her to shame--as in an unwed pregnancy would have violated the social mores.

Also, St. Paul mentions that if a man sleeps with a harlot, he becomes one flesh with her--that is, he marries her, for that is what marriage does, makes the two one flesh according to the Lord. So, it is a form of adultery, even if the man is not married already.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Ok from the ESV:Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

So what exactly does sexually immoral mean here?

Many translations specifically include fornication so assuming that this is a mistranslation on behalf of those translations aforementioned, there is always the church and verse 16 of the same chapter.

Ok from the ESV:Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

So what exactly does sexually immoral mean here?

Many translations specifically include fornication so assuming that this is a mistranslation on behalf of those translations aforementioned, there is always the church and verse 16 of the same chapter.

As far as lust, St. Matthew 5:28

I thought the greek transliteration was "Porneia" And tha fornication was a mistranslation.

« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 11:07:15 PM by Achronos »

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

Ok from the ESV:Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

So what exactly does sexually immoral mean here?

Many translations specifically include fornication so assuming that this is a mistranslation on behalf of those translations aforementioned, there is always the church and verse 16 of the same chapter.

As far as lust, St. Matthew 5:28

I thought the greek transliteration was "Porneia" And tha fornication was a mistranslation.